A man brought a writ of waste against Thomas Grey of York and alleged that he held for a life term by his lease and assigned waste in respect of a house namely in a grange, a hall and a cottage.
Fulthorpe. As for the hall and the grange we tell you that they were weak and the wood rotten at the time of the lease so that they were not able to stand and so subsequently they collapsed and we ask for judgment if we are chargeable with that; as to the cottage we say that you erected it after the commencement of the lease without our agreement and ask for judgment if you can assign waste there.
Hanmer. As for the cottage we wish to prove that there was one at the time of the lease and so it is waste and ask for judgment against you; as for your allegation that the buildings were in bad repair at the time of the lease we respond that by your indenture (which we show) you agreed to repair these buildings and maintain them in as good a state and better than they were when you received them, and thus he is obliged to repair them by his own deed and we ask for judgment whether he is receivable to say that they collapsed through bad repair.
Fulthorpe. Since we have alleged that they were in bad repair at the time of the lease and that they collapsed subsequently through their weakness and this excuses us in this action of waste, as we understand. As to what you say about us agreeing to repair the buildings by our indented deed, that is something that would charge us in an action of covenant and so whatever you may say about this deed there is no law to make me answer it.
WITCHINGHAM, J. Sir, the deed which you produce shows you might have an action of covenant against him in which you would be able to recover only single damages for the breach of the covenant whereas if you were to succeed against him through this indented deed in this writ of waste you would recover triple damages, which would not be right.
And so Ham’. Do you have anything else to say to charge him in this action of waste?
Hanmer. We tell you that at the time of the lease the great timbers were in sufficiently good state and suitable and not perished and subsequently for lack of roofing in your time after the making of the lease they perished by your default. We ask that you be convicted of waste.
Hasty. He does not allege that all the timber was in good condition but speaks only of the great timbers and so what he alleges is not sufficient matter to charge us with waste.
Kirkton. It may be that the great timber was in good condition but the beams were decayed at the time of the lease and so he could not roof the buildings without the beams and was not obliged to substitute others and then roof them, and so.
Hanmer. Then we tell you that after the making of the lease the walls collapsed by his default and so the building collapsed, and thus it is waste.
Hasty. The walls had collapsed at the time of the lease and so the building collapsed since and not by our default, as we are ready etc.
The others to the contrary.
Citations:
[1375] [Co. Litt. 53a (f)]
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.196947